A move to remove a sitting Head of State is unprecedented in Trinidad and Tobago. And I am certain that, that is also true, not only in the rest of the Caribbean, but also in 54 Commonwealth nations.
A similar provision for impeachment may exist in the constitutions of other countries but this has not been triggered in any country in the group mentioned.
There is nothing wrong with being first, but is it well-advised and judicious in the circumstances? And has it been properly thought through? And will it have the impact intended by the leader of the Opposition?
If the Opposition leader had anticipated a debate involving a joint sitting of Parliament, prevailing pandemic protocols would not have allowed a full sitting for debate in the first place.
As it stands now, based on guidelines issued by the Speaker, the Opposition leader will not even have the opportunity to read her own motion in the House of Representatives.
There is no provision, as far as I am aware, for a joint sitting of Parliament to debate. And there is no precedent for this either.
The joint sitting is largely ceremonial and, as Electoral College, specifically for the purpose of electing a President and for the first time ever, to remove a President. So members will be called upon to vote after the motion is read by the Speaker. And in spite of COVID, they will ensemble for the vote.
The vote to elect a President is by secret ballot. But the vote for removal will not be by secret ballot but by voice vote on the floor. A Yes or No vote in public glare, will find the Opposition sitting alone, visibly and demonstrably, with Government and Independents voting against impeachment and against the Opposition.
The Opposition leader has chastised those who have said the motion is doomed to fail, indicating that if there was validity to the motion, then whether it fails or not does not matter. And she is right on this; a motion by the Opposition is usually done to highlight something which needs to be brought to the population’s attention.
But what has been done to educate the population on the issues? What has been done to bring the people into the picture in an informed way? I do not think that the necessary groundwork has been done for public clarity and receptivity, especially in the context of an impeachment action against a sitting Head of State that is unprecedented.
The constitutional structure of Parliament does not allow for this motion against the President to succeed. The Government has the majority in each chamber and Independent Senators are at the pleasure of the President. So the Opposition leader and 10 Opposition members of the House of Representatives are guaranteed to lose. That might be okay, expected.
But the visual impact of Government and Independents voting together against the motion, and against the Opposition, will be telling. The isolation of the Opposition will be glaring.
The fact that there will be no debate, and just the Speaker reading the Opposition leader’s five-paragraph motion and then immediately taking the matter to a vote, which the Opposition will predictably lose, will be an anti-climax. The one surprise would be if someone is silent and abstains!
Citizens should know, that the standing orders of the House of Representatives provide ways and means of bringing a motion against the President that will yield a debate. That course, for whatever reason, was not taken.
For something like this, you need to be able to make the case forcefully in Parliament. It is clear now that the path chosen will not allow for that option. Clearly, there has been a miscalculation.
All of this has arisen because the Police Service Commission submitted to her Excellency the President, and then recalled, a merit list for a police commissioner and subsequently appointed two Acting Commissioners to function at different times, and that both PSC appointments were determined to be null and void by the High Court.
The issues with the merit list have been so far, why was it recalled and why did the President not submit it to Parliament? Silence on these easily answerable questions, and curt statements made by the Prime Minister last Saturday, have helped to fuel speculation of a conspiracy.
A well thought out Opposition strategy leading to full debate might have brought out important facts and, possibly, the truth.
The Opposition leader will now miss this opportunity, even as the Office of the President, an office, with arm’s length relationship with the Executive but which also carries with it Executive functions, has now become highly politicised.
It may well be that her Excellency, the President, will choose to have the last say.